Civil Enforcement Ltd

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

outraged_ said:

Coupon-mad said:

Was the POPLA Code/rejection letter issued to the company by name, or to you by name?

Choose OTHER for a POPLA appeal.

Can you prove you were in Gatwick?  That would help (not vital but v useful).

I don't know how I could prove other than to show my mum's flight ticket..

The letter was all addressed to the company.

Fruitcake said:

With regards to the address of the car park stated on the NTK, I believe this to be correct. I did ask you to confirm this in my reply, which was the first response to your query after you started this thread.
This needs to be resolved in conjunction with your point/para 5. 
You can't say you don't know which car park the charge is referring to then sate the signage is inadequate.
If it is the car park to the rear of the property as I suspect, then I wouldn't mention the other car parks at all.

In your appeal, you need to state at the beginning that the vehicle in question is a hire/lease vehicle, where you also state that you were not the driver.

I would actually make that an appeal point, under the heading: -

1) Not the driver nor the person liable for this charge.

Then adapt the wording you have used about not being the driver by preceding it with a statement that it was a hire vehicle and the hire/lease company is the registered keeper. I would also add something about any comment or inference from the hire company about the driver's identity is hearsay.

Obviously all your other points will need renumbering.

The rest looks okay to me.

I really don't know at all the correct car park. The address says high street, but there are no car parks in the high street. A google search around that area shows different car parks, so it is extremely confusing as we genuinely believed it was a public car park belonging to the council. If they can't supply the correct address or the exact location where the vehicle was parked, how can we know? They show no signage on the PCN either, so how can we know?
So you're saying you don't think I should mention signs?

I believe the address on the NTK is correct. The car park happens to be at the back of the property with vehicular access at the rear from a different road, but it is still all part of the property with the postal address on the High Street. It would be highly unusual to have two street addresses for the same property just because one happens to have a back gate into their garden (car park).

The alleyway to the side of the property on the High street marked, Customer car park at rear, leads straight through to the car park at the rear, but it's all part of the same property with the same street address.

If you read one of the few reviews on "Coleshill Long Stay Car Park", it says exactly this:

A nice small carpark that you don't have to pay for, but be careful if you drive through on to the social club carpark you could get a fine if you don't get a pay & display ticket, which a few locals told me when I was parking up

This is where the ringgo location is:
https://myringgo.com/parkinglocator?zone=51488

Here is the google review link:
https://www.google.com/search?q=car park at 84-86 high street, coleshill, birmingham, b46 3ah&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB941GB941&oq=CAR+PARK+AT+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j0i512l8.2550j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&tbs=lf:1,lf_ui:3&tbm=lcl&sxsrf=APwXEddbbamqEBs8402FsGixbA0fDqtvIQ:1683637626113&rflfq=1&num=10&rldimm=10044847652806327664&lqi=Cj1jYXIgcGFyayBhdCA4NC04NiBoaWdoIHN0cmVldCwgY29sZXNoaWxsLCBiaXJtaW5naGFtLCBiNDYgM2FoSMbUu4z8rYCACFpSEAAQARgAGAEYBRgGGAciOmNhciBwYXJrIGF0IDg0IDg2IGhpZ2ggc3RyZWV0IGNvbGVzaGlsbCBiaXJtaW5naGFtIGI0NiAzYWgqBggDEAAQAZIBC3BhcmtpbmdfbG90qgF6CgcvbS8wazRqEAEqDCIIY2FyIHBhcmsoADIfEAEiG7_wqXSLyMGTvaWpHDe3Cu9IGDSYmIuyu9466jI-EAIiOmNhciBwYXJrIGF0IDg0IDg2IGhpZ2ggc3RyZWV0IGNvbGVzaGlsbCBiaXJtaW5naGFtIGI0NiAzYWg&ved=2ahUKEwiK1In1puj-AhV-i_0HHakXAUgQvS56BAgdEAE&sa=X&rlst=f#rlfi=hd:;si:10044847652806327664,l,Cj1jYXIgcGFyayBhdCA4NC04NiBoaWdoIHN0cmVldCwgY29sZXNoaWxsLCBiaXJtaW5naGFtLCBiNDYgM2FoSMbUu4z8rYCACFpSEAAQARgAGAEYBRgGGAciOmNhciBwYXJrIGF0IDg0IDg2IGhpZ2ggc3RyZWV0IGNvbGVzaGlsbCBiaXJtaW5naGFtIGI0NiAzYWgqBggDEAAQAZIBC3BhcmtpbmdfbG90qgF6CgcvbS8wazRqEAEqDCIIY2FyIHBhcmsoADIfEAEiG7_wqXSLyMGTvaWpHDe3Cu9IGDSYmIuyu9466jI-EAIiOmNhciBwYXJrIGF0IDg0IDg2IGhpZ2ggc3RyZWV0IGNvbGVzaGlsbCBiaXJtaW5naGFtIGI0NiAzYWg;mv:[[52.523359199999994,-1.6917632],[52.4974795,-1.7122697999999998]];tbs:lrf:!1m4!1u3!2m2!3m1!1e1!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:3

Fruitcake

I think I have worked it out. No wonder we were both confused. 

It appears to be two car parks, one behind the other with the front part being council and the rear part being private.

The NTK states car park at 84-86 High Street. Number 84 used to be a Co-oP store but is now Coleshill Local Supermarket.

To the left of number 86 is an alleyway leading to a car park. This is the view from the front with the alleyway, and above it a sign stating, Free Customer Car Park At Rear.

88 B4117 - Google Maps

As you drive into this car park from the rear, you find yourself in the Coleshill Long Stay council car park. Behind that is the supermarket car park which is private land and infested by CEL.

Entrance to council car park, and footpath to the alleyway adjacent to number 86 High Street.

17 Parkfield Rd - Google Maps

There are no current images of this, but 2015 GSV images show a separate car park to the council one, but with no signs or lines to indicate it is private land.

View from (former Co-oP) supermarket car park looking back towards the council car park.

Coleshill, England - Google Maps

I suspect nothing has changed and there are no signs or lines to tell a driver they are leaving the council car park and entering the supermarket car park.

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

I think I have worked it out. No wonder we were both confused. 

It appears to be two car parks, one behind the other with the front part being council and the rear part being private.

The NTK states car park at 84-86 High Street. Number 84 used to be a Co-oP store but is now Coleshill Local Supermarket.

To the left of number 86 is an alleyway leading to a car park. This is the view from the front with the alleyway, and above it a sign stating, Free Customer Car Park At Rear.

88 B4117 - Google Maps

As you drive into this car park from the rear, you find yourself in the Coleshill Long Stay council car park. Behind that is the supermarket car park which is private land and infested by CEL.

Entrance to council car park, and footpath to the alleyway adjacent to number 86 High Street.

17 Parkfield Rd - Google Maps

There are no current images of this, but 2015 GSV images show a separate car park to the council one, but with no signs or lines to indicate it is private land.

View from (former Co-oP) supermarket car park looking back towards the council car park.

Coleshill, England - Google Maps

I suspect nothing has changed and there are no signs or lines to tell a driver they are leaving the council car park and entering the supermarket car park.

Exactly! And there is the issue why initially this was treated as a council location. Now you get my point that is far from clear isn't it? Anyway, POPLA appeal was submitted yesterday. Fingers crossed they agree with us...

Thanks for your help!

outraged_

CEL replied to my appeal, please see below.

I need some help on my final comments.

They have the hirer’s name, the hire company sent the agreement with the name, but they are still not treating that person as the driver.

Fruitcake

You point out in your rebuttal that any points not addressed by the PPC must mean they agree with the appellant, therefore the appeal must be granted on those points.

Did CEL include a copy of the hire agreement AND a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer in accordance with para 13 sub para 2 (c) and 3 (a) with the NTH? 
Were the requirements of para 14 sub para 5 of the PoFA met?

If not, then they have failed to comply with paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA 2012, and therefore the hirer cannot be held liable.

B789

That "Confirmation of Authority" has been superseded by my "Confirmation of Authority". See below:

Castle

Coleshill Supermarket Ltd doesn't exist!

Fruitcake

Castle said:

Coleshill Supermarket Ltd doesn't exist!

Correct. The company name registered at Companies House is Coleshill Local Supermarket Limited, which matches precisely the name on the premises themselves.



This means that the confirmation of authority is for a completely different company than the landowner at the site. In addition, it fails to comply with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The good news is that the "authority" does allow court claims.

It won't affect the outcome because PoPLA will ignore it, but the winning points will (should) be non PoFA compliant NTH.

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

Castle said:

Coleshill Supermarket Ltd doesn't exist!

Correct. The company name registered at Companies House is Coleshill Local Supermarket Limited, which matches precisely the name on the premises themselves.



This means that the confirmation of authority is for a completely different company than the landowner at the site. In addition, it fails to comply with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The good news is that the "authority" does allow court claims.

It won't affect the outcome because PoPLA will ignore it, but the winning points will (should) be non PoFA compliant NTH.

Thanks. So what do you think, do I have a chance?

I need to make my comments within seven days.

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

You point out in your rebuttal that any points not addressed by the PPC must mean they agree with the appellant, therefore the appeal must be granted on those points.

Did CEL include a copy of the hire agreement AND a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer in accordance with para 13 sub para 2 (c) and 3 (a) with the NTH? 
Were the requirements of para 14 sub para 5 of the PoFA met?

If not, then they have failed to comply with paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA 2012, and therefore the hirer cannot be held liable.

You’re completely right, they haven’t included that, only the hire agreement.