Civil Enforcement Limited POPLA Appeal - already declared driver.

disgruntled01

“Good” Evening,

I’m seeking advice on what best to do. We received a Parking Charge Notice from "Civil Enforcement Limited” for a visit to my GPs on the 19th November. It states:

- Location: Car Park at the side of the Aspen Centre, horton road, gloucester, GL1 3PX.

- Terms and conditons: Permit Holders only.

- Issue Date: 22nd December

I rang the GPs, and was advised to submit an appeal simply stating as we had an appointment and they could confirm that with the GP, and that would be the end of it. 

I submitted one as such, stating that we had an appointment, they could confirm it, and my wife believes she put the registration in correctly so far as she can remember, and we parked in the right place as far as we were aware (noting that signage is dreadfully confusing and before the number plate cameras we could park anywhere in the car park). 

 

I have now had a letter noting the appeal has been successful. Apparently honesty and simplicity is not the best policy. It simply states "We have no record of the above vehicle being registered to be exempt from the parking restrictions in place.” Although unclear, perhaps it means my wife did not enter the registration correctly on the ‘tablet’ in the GP reception, and this is the grounds upon which a record of our vehicle is being disputed.  

I am now left with the option to pay the reduced £60 rate by the 21st January 2022 (nice that they only give me 14 days when it took them over a month to send me the PCN in the first place!), or be charged £100 if I pay later or if I have a POPLA appeal which fails. I can just about afford the £60 now, but the £100 it my appeal fails will put me in difficulty.

I have now found the MSE forum, and have read the NEWBIES thread.  I’m now concerned that i’ve ruined my chances of appealing successfully at POPLA anyway, effectively because the advice is to appeal and state as the keeper I don’t recognise the charge and to not identify who was driving.  In my haste to get things over and done with in the initial appeal, I implied it was my wife driving.  

I’m now at POPLA stage then, and the guidance in the NEWBIES thread states I should not imply who was driving, which I fear I already have done. 

Is it worth me trying to appeal via POPLA, or should I just accept I’ve failed at the first hurdle by appealing initially and assuming they may have been reasonable people? If I should appeal, I’m not sure how I go about it, or what I should be saying. I tried looking at the thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71489034#Comment_71489034 but could not find a similar example to help.

Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. Have I mucked up my chance of a successful appeal - all the advice on the newbies thread seems to suggest I have because I’ve said my wife was driving? If I do stand a chance of appealing, how should I go about this / what should I say? 

Thanks in advance.

KeithP

But... but... but...

Why are you attempting a PoPLA appeal?

You told us...

disgruntled01 said:

I have now had a letter noting the appeal has been successful. 

disgruntled01

You spotted my typo.  My initial appeal was not successful, hence I'm after advice on the POPLA appeal stage and if it's worth it. 

Coupon-mad

Did you see the other Aspen Centre case?

Search the discussions and filter the search to this board only, 'newest' and untick 'polls'.

I wonder if the keypad failed on a day or two.  Horrible scam for patients but you don't PAY so the discount is irrelevant.

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

Did you see the other Aspen Centre case?

Search the discussions and filter the search to this board only, 'newest' and untick 'polls'.

I wonder if the keypad failed on a day or two.  Horrible scam for patients but you don't PAY so the discount is irrelevant.

Thanks.  I've seen the other Aspen Centre case, thanks for the pointer.  There seem to be many many many people currently being stung as they introduced the system in September. The doctors website now has a rolling banner on it saying 'not our problem' because they are getting so many complaints.

So even though I have previously suggested who the driver was, I should submit an appeal just down to the fact that we had a valid appointment slot and it could have been a reaonsble user error to enter the number or an error on their data recording system?

Le_Kirk

disgruntled01 said:

Thanks.  I've seen the other Aspen Centre case, thanks for the pointer.  There seem to be many many many people currently being stung as they introduced the system in September. The doctors website now has a rolling banner on it saying 'not our problem' because they are getting so many complaints.

So even though I have previously suggested who the driver was, I should submit an appeal just down to the fact that we had a valid appointment slot and it could have been a reasonable user error to enter the number or an error on their data recording system?

But I am afraid it is their problem as they introduced the PPC to the car park!  Maybe you should point them at the NHS guidelines for car parks: -
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles/nhs-patient-visitor-and-staff-car-parking-principles
and in particular this bit: -

NHS organisations are responsible for the actions of private contractors who run car parks on their behalf.

Coupon-mad

No that is not the only point for aa POPLA appeal.  See NEWBIES thread.

For me, the rolling banner would be EVEN MORE reason to add to the complaints and get CEL removed.  A local paper would no doubt like this story too, add to the publicity, flush CEL out.

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

No that is not the only point for aa POPLA appeal.  See NEWBIES thread.

Fir me, the rolling banner would be EVEN MORE reason to add to the complaints and get CEL removed.  A local paper would no doubt like this story too, add to the publicity, flush CEL out.

So, I’ve tried to understand the information in the newbies sticky to help me put together a POPLA appeal (including looking at other POPLA appeals).

Re NEWBIES Post#1:
Just to note, I appealed using the PPC (CE Limited) website as I was given the impression by the GP surgery that as I had an appointment it should not be a problem. In the appeal I suggested who the driver was.  Upon rejection of my appeal I’ve now found and spent some time reading the forum here.

I now know that I should not have implied the driver, but that bird’s already flown.

I have checked compliance of the NTK (assumed to be the PCN which is the first notification of any charge I’ve had) against the link to Schedule 4 of POFA2012, paragraph 9.  There seem to be a couple of issues:
- It assumes the keeper is the driver, and is liable.  This is not true and so breaches various parts of Paragraph 9 sub-paragraph 2. Is this correct?
- Clause 5 states “The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.” My PCN is dated 34 days after the ‘incident’.  

So, as it doesn't state it assumes keeper liability (it says very little at all) and that it took 34 days to issue, they’re not compliant with POFA2012 and I can just state I am not liable, or am I scuppered by previously suggesting who the driver was?

Looking then onto the NEWBIES Post#3, relating to the Second Stage POPLA appeal which I am at.

There are a few points I’d like to check for advice - can I put something together as follows for the basis of a POPLA appeal:

Dear POPLA,
PCN Number: xxx
POPLA Verification Code: xxx

I write to you as the registered keeper of the vehicle xxxx, I wish to appeal the £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by ParkingEye Ltd.

1. Signage
I’ve read the linked post (p=71285691&postcount=2341), I’m not sure a lot of it applies (for example the charge is clear on the sign) so presumably I can’t use the ‘default’ text?
Can I say something like:

The signage is confusing, as acknowledged by other parties including the GP surgery on the premises who have tried to get it improved (Ref. Aspen Centre Facebook statement 31st December) and due to the number of patients inundating them with calls regarding PCNs have added a generic statement on their website. It is therefore clear that this case is not a one off occurrence, but rather that there is a clear intent to obfuscate the ability to comply with the introduced parking requirements.  By way of example, the site has a range of signs (two examples are given on the other Aspen Centre post 78878790/#Comment_78878790, although I believe the car was parked in the correct location), with different information and terms on different signs. The precise terms related to each space are therefore not immediately obvious.  Thus there is inadequate transparency to form a contract with the driver.
 
2. No Keeper Liability
In my original appeal I’ve implied the driver.  Although that is not the keeper (as assumed), does this mean I can’t use the text in the linked post (71287626&postcount=2342)?
Can I say something like:

A compliant Notice to Keeper has not been served. I assert that CE Limited have failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. Initial Parking cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged contravention from the driver at the time to me (the registered keeper). I attach scanned copies of the front and rear PCN sent by CE Limited dated 22nd December 2021 (see Image 1 and Image 2).

The operator has failed to act in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule 4 sub-paragraph 9 (5) which states that the notice to keeper must be sent by post within 14 days from the day after the event.

 The operator has failed to act in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice though the BPA logo is on their paperwork.

Under paragraph 22.10 the BPA clearly states:

…If you are not making use of the keeper liability provisions of POFA or you are unable to achieve the deadlines specified therein, your letter must not reference POFA or state that the keeper is liable.

 Therefore, as the keeper of the vehicle, I CANNOT be held liable.
3. Land Owner Authority
It looks like this can be used as per the text in 71287628&postcount=2343

4. Permit Car Park
Its a GP’s car park, for which I had an appointment, so does this count as a permit car park? I’m not sure what text from the linked posts is meant to be of assistance to me... if anything it made me worried that the appeal would be rejected…

5. ANPR
The system is ANPR. Can I claim some of the ANPR reliability text such as point 3 in 5538581/parkingeye-pcn-broken-ticket-machine-need-help-on-popla-appeal/p2)? How would I know if it’s applicable. Their point seems to simply be we parked without a permit, nothing to do with the time we were there for so perhaps not really relevant or grounds for an appeal…or should I use just because it's ANPR?

6. The operators database is unreliable - Given as best I can tell they are issuing the PCN because our VRN was not in their database (“We have no record of the above vehicle being registered to be exempt from the parking restrictions in place.”), can I contend the reliability of their recording system, something like the following. Or is it a risk to introduce a non-standard argument in an appeal?

It is claimed that the Vehicle Registration is not recorded as having a permit. The driver is confident they entered the vehicle registration into the tablet on the premises and therefore obtained a permit.  There is no proof that the driver did not enter the Vehicle Registration on the tablet. Rather it is claimed only that CE Limited has no record of this.   If for example a system fault caused the VRN not to be stored, this is a matter within CE Limited’s control, and not the driver’s fault.

The driver asserts that they entered the vehicle registration accurately as required to park whilst taking a patient to their appointment. Proof (attached) is provided that a valid appointment was scheduled and therefore the driver had a legitimate reason to park on the premises to attend. It is therefore illogical to suggest that the driver would not have complied so far as is reasonably practicable to obtain a parking permit. It is therefore only the reliability of the CE Limited's records that are called in to question.  


Therefore, it is respectfully requested that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and the appeal should be upheld on every point.

Yours faithfully

KeithP

Put quite simply... if the parking company already know who was driving, then any talk about POFA and keeper liability is not worth a mention.

Coupon-mad

Remove 'no keeper liability' if you already threw that baby out with the bathwater (sadly, as that was the 100% slam dunk winning point if the NTK was non POFA but you can't use any of it).

CEL signs normally hide the £100 in small print.  Is that not the case?

Also add a pic of that extra hand-printed sign we've all seen on your thread or the other one, and make it clear that this extra one is NOT a CEL sign and has just been added in desperation by one of the offices (or maybe the surgery themselves?) as it's A4 printed.  All this paints a clear picture of a site that has not been properly signed to alert people who are local and used to the car park, that there is now an unexpected  £100 charge risk for visiting the doctor.

Also add an extra point that this is a new restriction and CEL failed to add extra, very conspicuous and large signs inside and outside the surgery (nor indeed next to the new but positively hidden keypad indoors) to alert people to the new requirements for the different bays, which are neither separated by any barrier nor even painted a different colour.  Essentially, this set up that has been suddenly sprung on the GP surgery patients is a 'concealed pitfall or trap' (Supreme Court's phrase from ParkingEye v Beavis) in that it presents as one car park but has two or three 'different rules' areas, yet with zero fair warnings or delineation between the various bay areas.  This breaches the BPA CoP Rules about car park areas next to other parking areas with no delineation, and it breaches the CoP rule about new or changed parking restrictions.

Prove this with images in the appeal document, like an illustrated storybook:

The signage is confusing, as acknowledged by other parties including the GP surgery on the premises who have tried to get it improved (Ref. Aspen Centre Facebook statement 31st December) and due to the number of patients inundating them with calls regarding PCNs have added a generic statement on their website.

I like your wording about the signs being ambiguous but you must also include readable screenshots of the website and facebook warnings/updates, embedded as readable, non-blurry pictures in your POPLA appeal (POPLA will never go looking nor follow links).  Your appeal document will be saved as a multi-page PDF once you've finalised it and will be uploaded under 'other' on the POPLA website, so make it an easy 'book' to read and understand.

Add a new point (if CEL didn't offer to settle at £20) saying that this was a 'major keying error' for which CEL should have offered settlement at £20, under the BPA CoP.  Quote the section about major keying errors and DO NOT say you made no attempt to enter the VRM.  Leave that unsaid.

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 'no keeper liability' if you already threw that baby out with the bathwater (sadly, as that was the 100% slam dunk winning point if the NTK was non POFA but you can't use any of it).

I know for next time. It's a shame I was open and honest and naive in my understanding that this should have been a simple thing to resolve, and not a right pain. I hope it does not mean my appeal is destined to fail. I feel that the GP practice should clearly state the advice to stop others making the same honest mistake I did!

CEL signs normally hide the £100 in small print.  Is that not the case?

This is the sign that relates to the GP area - does it count as small print?:

Also add a pic of that extra hand-printed sign we've all seen on your thread or the other one, and make it clear that this extra one is NOT a CEL sign and has just been added in desperation by one of the offices (or maybe the surgery themselves?) as it's A4 printed.  All this paints a clear picture of a site that has not been properly signed to alert people who are local and used to the car park, that there is now an unexpected  £100 charge risk for visiting the doctor.

Also add an extra point that this is a new restriction and CEL failed to add extra, very conspicuous and large signs inside and outside the surgery (nor indeed next to the new but positively hidden keypad indoors) to alert people to the new requirements for the different bays, which are neither separated by any barrier nor even painted a different colour.  Essentially, this set up that has been suddenly sprung on the GP surgery patients is a 'concealed pitfall or trap' (Supreme Court's phrase from ParkingEye v Beavis) in that it presents as one car park but has two or three 'different rules' areas, yet with zero fair warnings or delineation between the various bay areas.  This breaches the BPA CoP Rules about car park areas next to other parking areas with no delineation, and it breaches the CoP rule about new or changed parking restrictions.
Prove this with images in the appeal document, like an illustrated storybook:

The signage is confusing, as acknowledged by other parties including the GP surgery on the premises who have tried to get it improved (Ref. Aspen Centre Facebook statement 31st December) and due to the number of patients inundating them with calls regarding PCNs have added a generic statement on their website.

I'll add the hand printed sign picture on one of the other parking areas in the car park, and draft some updated text about poor deliniation between parking areas with different requirements.

The Facebook statement I was going to add was as such:

The doctors website banner/statement as such, and I was going to point out it takes the user to a link which notes "....for any parking penalty enquirers please see their contact information on the back of the penalty letter." This is clearly indicative of an wide scale issue:

I have also had an email from the Aspen PPG chair where they note:

"Due to the amount of correspondence regarding car parking this is an article to explain the current position....

I would recommend that you challenge the car parking company based on the complexity of the signage not being clear and the areas set aside for each building that are hosted on the Aspen estate.  I believe because of the colouring and consistency of the signs it is not clear enough as your reason to challenge.

We recognise the impact this has caused on both patients and staff that have received parking notices and are working to improve the situation and be clear on parking arrangements for the Aspen Practice.  Please note that this is not a practice initiative and is an arrangement between the landlord and the parking company."

Presumably it's worth including this as something like an 'independent witness' that things are sub-standard?

I like your wording about the signs being ambiguous but you must also include readable screenshots of the website and facebook warnings/updates, embedded as readable, non-blurry pictures in your POPLA appeal (POPLA will never go looking nor follow links).  Your appeal document will be saved as a multi-page PDF once you've finalised it and will be uploaded under 'other' on the POPLA website, so make it an easy 'book' to read and understand.

Hopefully the pictures above are clear enough. Thanks for the advice on how to load it into the POPLA website. 

Add a new point (if CEL didn't offer to settle at £20) saying that this was a 'major keying error' for which CEL should have offered settlement at £20, under the BPA CoP.  Quote the section about major keying errors and DO NOT say you made no attempt to enter the VRM.  Leave that unsaid.

There was no such offer to settle at £20.  I'll look about about major keying errors, I am 100% confident that attempt was made (I suspect, in fact multiple entries were made, which is in part why I'm so shocked about receiving the PCN!).

Finally, THANK YOU very much for replying with some additional suggestions (especially over the weekend!). I'll get on with drafting an update at the next available chance.