Civil Enforcement Limited POPLA Appeal - already declared driver.

D_P_Dance

You have put in the first sentence that it is ParkingEye, but it's not!

But the sign at the top of this page is,   OP please clarify.

KeithP

D_P_Dance said:

You have put in the first sentence that it is ParkingEye, but it's not!

But the sign at the top of this page is,   OP please clarify.

Please read again that post that shows a ParkingEye sign and note who posted it. 

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eEQpflPV1NJdnl3di34CZ3nebSzSzKjE3_WqKieRtqo/edit?usp=sharing

You have put in the first sentence that it is ParkingEye, but it's not!

Don't bother with your queried 3 or 4 as POPLA won't consider that.  ANPR failure allegations hit a brick wall.

Change the heading of your draft #5 to 'The tablet was used and this can only have been a keying error at the most'

That's because you want a heading that grabs the Assessor's attention straight to the 'easy win' for you that this was a keying error.  So important is that point that, if it were me, I'd have it as #1 then 'unclear signage' and your pics, then no landowner authority.

Thanks, and updated per your suggestions.  Thanks for identifying my first sentence error - late night typing!

I presume that the query I had on whether I can talk about the CE signs being 'illegible' is inline with experience of previous cases/signage and so I don't need to update the 'standard' text in the Signage section?

I'll hopefully get to the site tomorrow just to check on the signage at the entrance to see if there is any, and then I can make a final update, after which point keep my fingers crossed.

Thanks again.

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

.... You will lose at POPLA and CEL sue people all the time.....

I'm now slightly unnerved having seen your advice on another thread about the Aspen Centre parking where you are suggesting to just pay the reduced fine.... the only difference I can see is they have said they didn't use the tablets, where as in my case the driver is certain they made attempt to use the tablets....

Coupon-mad

Which is why you should win.  Read the recent case in POPLA DECISIONS from the last month or so, where POPLA said that an appeal would normally succeed where a person is adamant they did use a keypad and it's a keying error, because the PPC failed to offer the £20 required in the CoP.

This is why that needs to be your #1 point.

disgruntled01

Coupon-mad said:

Which is why you should win.  Read the recent case in POPLA DECISIONS from the last month or so, where POPLA said that an appeal would normally succeed where a person is adamant they did use a keypad and it's a keying error, because the PPC failed to offer the £20 required in the CoP.

This is why that needs to be your #1 point.

That makes sense. I'll keep my fingers crossed then

I'm off to visit the site today just to check the last couple of points about entrance signage and then I'll be able to finalise and submit the appeal.

disgruntled01

All,

In parallel to developing a POPLA Appeal ready to submit, I had been in contact with my MP over this matter. After many emails back and forth (with some advice and points made through your expert advice on the POPLA drafting), I have had it confirmed that CE Limited are dropping the charges against me, and anyone else who had contacted the MP.  I thought you may be interested in the text of the CE L response I received:

CE L said:

Thank you for your email dated 11 January 2022, and your follow up correspondence, regarding various concerns raised about Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to various constituents of Richard Graham MP at the Aspen Centre car park. We have now reviewed the circumstances and can advise as follows.

We were instructed by the managing agent of the Centre to install our car park management system at the premises. As you are aware, there are two car parking areas serving the centre, with the doctors’ surgery at the rear of the Centre, and various other clinics/businesses having rights to the parking spaces at the front of the building. The area at the rear of the Centre is for GP Practice only, as is indicated on signage at the entrance and within the car park, with the direction for patients/visitors to obtain a parking permit inside the Aspen Medical Practice.

The parking spaces at the front car park of the building are allocated in differing numbers across various other occupants of the Centre, with the signage directing motorists to register for a parking permit at the relevant clinic or business.

As you may be aware, the system was installed in September and no significant issues or anomalies were reported to us in the first 2 months of operation. It would appear that during the two weeks prior to Christmas, some motorists registered on the incorrect exemption tablets, and therefore did not have the correct exemption for the car park they had parked in. Other motorists did not register at all, despite the clear notification on the signs that registration was a condition of parking.

Where motorists had parked but registered using the wrong site tablet, these cases were dealt with on appeal in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice paragraph 17.4 requirements, and a substantially discounted Parking Charge sum of £20 would be made to the motorist. Appeals for PCNs where no VRM was registered by the driver have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis and where evidence of a legitimate visit was provided at appeal stage, the matter was also dealt with in accordance with the BPA p.17.4 guidance.

We can confirm that the PCNs which have been notified to us by your office will be cancelled as gesture of goodwill on this occasion and we will write to each registered keeper to notify them. We can also confirm that we are liaising with the client to provide more detailed signage at the premises and a map at the entrance to the car park to notify motorists which spaces are allocated to which particular clinic or surgery at the Centre.

The ANPR system works as a low-impact, efficient system which avoids the need for the employment of manual patrol officers, at significant additional costs to landowners and/or operators, in addition to the risk of confrontation in the car park and the need to display a parking ticket in the vehicle. Our modern exemption permit based system ensures that only legitimate visitors to the premises can utilise the parking facilities, as they register for an exemption permit within the premises as directed on the signage. This system also avoids the delays and difficulties associated with barrier systems, which adds additional time and expense to landowners who have to deal with drivers who haven’t validated a ticket or paid the correct tariff, broken barriers and cars trapped in car parks after closing time.

So good news for me, and for anyone else who decided to complain to our MP.  I just feel that it's a sorry state of affairs that, particularly those who may be suffering with physical or mental health issues, are potentially being taken advantage of to make money for such private companies and land owners...

Thanks once again for all your advice on over the past couple of weeks.  I'll certainly be much better informed for the future!

Umkomaas

Excellent news and a great outcome. Well done in being resilient and engaging your MP in getting the charge cancelled. While you did not receive his usual advice directly from him (probably having a snooze! 🤫) to contact your MP, @D_P_Dance will be delighted that you did so and that his strategy proved successful. 

But, even though I love to see PCNs being cancelled, the best outcome of your experience for me is summed up by your comment in your final paragraph. 

I'll certainly be much better informed for the future!

Great result. 👍

D_P_Dance

If these companies upset MPs, those MPs are likely to take action, make laws which seriously disadvantage them.  Lokk what happened when they annoyed Sir Greg Knight. y

Coupon-mad

Very good news and we know which MP to signpost people to, in future Aspen Medical Centre cases.  You can bet your bottom dollar that, despite knowing of the issues and having to improve the woeful signage, CEL will soon be suing the 'low hanging fruit' cases who ignored their unfair PCN.