Wells-Next-The-Sea Quay - Civil Enforcement

helpasap2016

dcbl stands for Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd,
this my , unfair dated ticket from 20/08/2016 at a restaurant that takes your registration when you arrive for your booking! Client, Civil Enforcement Ltd .that are using, a Supreme Court Decision about Parking Charges! Now they are recommending the client take legal action against me . Notice of Debt Recovery!
I have not replied to this harassment and Bullying invoices, this is , 04/04/2022
this is unbelievable , can anyone give me any advice if this has happened to them , as I have checked YouTube and all other info on the Net 
and found no help at all !
Glasgow

Umkomaas

helpasap2016 said:

dcbl stands for Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd,
this my , unfair dated ticket from 20/08/2016 at a restaurant that takes your registration when you arrive for your booking! Client, Civil Enforcement Ltd .that are using, a Supreme Court Decision about Parking Charges! Now they are recommending the client take legal action against me . Notice of Debt Recovery!
I have not replied to this harassment and Bullying invoices, this is , 04/04/2022
this is unbelievable , can anyone give me any advice if this has happened to them , as I have checked YouTube and all other info on the Net 
and found no help at all !
Glasgow

Do you have any links to this thread to cause you to post on it?  

If you have a case of your own, please do make a new thread for it, but if you're based in Scotland (or the parking event took place there) and this is a single ticket event, you can safely ignore it. But, if you've already made contact with CEL or DCB Limited, please start your own new thread for further advice. 

Coupon-mad

There are loads of threads here about CEL using DCBLtd for cases they can't sue over, such as this one today right next to your own on the new thread list:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6115911/cel-letter-before-action/p8

You have the added advantage of being in Scotland (untouchable for old PCNs but the law in Scotland is changing for new ones).

Don't contact them.  Ignore.

NO REPLY HERE PLEASE -THIS THREAD IS ABOUT ANOTHER CASE.

WaterBourne

As the space to respond is limited I've shortened some of these responses. 

Fairlie V Fenton was covered in the initial appeal

Apologies the authority is signed, I managed to not display it all. 

Here are my points to return to POPLA with:

·         A contract has not been shown by CEL to counter claims that they have no authority, despite the fact that this land is covered by byelaws and therefore not private land. CEL cannot hold the keeper liable.

·         The car park in question is owned by the wells harbour commissioners and is governed entirely under statutory control by byelaws, regulations and subordinate rules stated clearly by the car park signs which display the authority of such with the wording "BY ORDER OF THE WELLS HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS". Therefore keeper liability cannot apply.  

·         Paragraph 4 of CELs pack is actually laughable as the defendant won the case as the signs were not clear enough. This is CEL cherry picking. Therefore their para 4 should be ignored. 

·         The appellant may or may not have been there. The DRIVER has not been named. 

·         Once again how can the onus be on the appellant? CEL’s notice to keepers are not POFA compliant, I believe they mean the driver. 

·         The notice was issued to the keeper, the driver has not been named and, as such, has never received anything. 

·         Signage is not BPA compliant. Signage does not offer a contract to the driver, the charge is in small font and buried in the sign

·         The Appellant failed to purchase parking for vehicle registration VO17KNP – The appellant may or may not have been in attendance, no assumptions can be made.

WaterBourne

Excellent start to the day. Million thanks to all on here that assisted. 

Decision

Successful

Assessor Name

Barry Arledge

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as payment not made in accordance with the terms displayed on signage.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case raises several grounds detailing why the charge is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). 

They have been summarised as follows: 

• The car park is not considered relevant land.
• The Notice to Keeper (NTK) does not invite the keeper to name the driver
• The NTK does not warn the motorist that the driver’s name is unknown to the operator
• The NTK was received by the appellant outside of the relevant period
• The signage at the site is not compliant
• Landowner Authority The appellant has provided images of the signage at the car park The appellant provided additional comments in response to the operator’s case file

Castle

So what did you win on? 

Coupon-mad

Congrats!

Can you post the full decision (with a link to this thread and saying which PPC you beat) in POPLA Decisions, top of the forum.

But we beg you to stop yourself from just copying & pasting POPLA's wall of text - please add about half a dozen paragraph breaks to break it up to be readable!

WaterBourne

Posted on the POPLA decisions thread, hopefully with enough breaks to make it readable. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, perfect!  You won on the non-POFA point.

Nicely done.

Umkomaas

Well done.  Particularly satisfying as POPLA will have cost CEL £30 appeal fee, and even more so when they surely knew they had no chance of success once a PoFA-related appeal for a ticket at a site under statutory control was before them. A fool and his money ...... !