Civil Enforcement Ltd

Fruitcake

outraged_ said:

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.

You have six days, not seven. The date the PoPLA code is issued is day one.

Since they haven't supplied the docs required by the PoFA, the NTH is non-PoFA compliant therefore the hirer cannot be held liable therefore the appeal must be allowed.

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

outraged_ said:

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.

You have six days, not seven. The date the PoPLA code is issued is day one.

Since they haven't supplied the docs required by the PoFA, the NTH is non-PoFA compliant therefore the hirer cannot be held liable therefore the appeal must be allowed.

In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

This is what they attached. Sadly, I think it does include the statement of liability, now that I read it properly.

However, they still didn't comply with the requirements of para 14 (5)(a).

KeithP

outraged_ said:
In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

That is to do with damage done to taller vehicles.
For example, if you were to attempt to drive a motorcaravan under a low barrier often seen at car park entrances, you would be responsible for the damage.

In other words, that sentence is nothing to be concerned about in your situation.

outraged_

KeithP said:

outraged_ said:
In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

That is to do with damage done to taller vehicles.
For example, if you were to attempt to drive a motorcaravan under a low barrier often seen at car park entrances, you would be responsible for the damage.

In other words, that sentence is nothing to be concerned about in your situation.

No, it mentions parking too. It says, as I posted above (may be a bit blurry)

".., I will be liable as owner/hirer of the vehicle, or any replacement vehicle, for any fixed penalty offence, penalty charge notice, notice to owner, parking charge notice, for that vehicle under s66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ... and any other relevant legislation ..."

outraged_

Good for my comments or do I need to add anything else?

I was not the driver and have provided ample evidence of it, despite the confusion from the initial communication with Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Further, the requirements of paragraph 14 sub paragraph 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 were also not met, therefore the hirer cannot be held liable.

The confirmation of authority is for a different company than the landowner at the site: Coleshill Supermarket Ltd does not exist on Companies House, only Coleshill LOCAL Supermarket Limited. In addition, it fails to comply with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The points not addressed by Civil Enforcement Ltd must mean they agree with the appellant, therefore the appeal must be granted on those points.

KeithP

outraged_ said:

KeithP said:

outraged_ said:
In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

That is to do with damage done to taller vehicles.
For example, if you were to attempt to drive a motorcaravan under a low barrier often seen at car park entrances, you would be responsible for the damage.

In other words, that sentence is nothing to be concerned about in your situation.

No, it mentions parking too. It says, as I posted above (may be a bit blurry)

".., I will be liable as owner/hirer of the vehicle, or any replacement vehicle, for any fixed penalty offence, penalty charge notice, notice to owner, parking charge notice, for that vehicle under s66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ... and any other relevant legislation ..."

OK, but I was merely commenting on the phrase "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage". That's all.

Fruitcake

outraged_ said:

Fruitcake said:

outraged_ said:

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.

You have six days, not seven. The date the PoPLA code is issued is day one.

Since they haven't supplied the docs required by the PoFA, the NTH is non-PoFA compliant therefore the hirer cannot be held liable therefore the appeal must be allowed.

In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

This is what they attached. Sadly, I think it does include the statement of liability, now that I read it properly.

However, they still didn't comply with the requirements of para 14 (5)(a).

Then say that,
However, they still didn't comply with the requirements of para 14 (5)(a).

You only need to win on one point. They have to win on every point.

outraged_

KeithP said:

outraged_ said:

KeithP said:

outraged_ said:
In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

That is to do with damage done to taller vehicles.
For example, if you were to attempt to drive a motorcaravan under a low barrier often seen at car park entrances, you would be responsible for the damage.

In other words, that sentence is nothing to be concerned about in your situation.

No, it mentions parking too. It says, as I posted above (may be a bit blurry)

".., I will be liable as owner/hirer of the vehicle, or any replacement vehicle, for any fixed penalty offence, penalty charge notice, notice to owner, parking charge notice, for that vehicle under s66 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 ... and any other relevant legislation ..."

OK, but I was merely commenting on the phrase "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage". That's all.

Yes I meant to put three dots to say it continues. What do you think of my comments above to send to POPLA?

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

outraged_ said:

Fruitcake said:

outraged_ said:

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.

You have six days, not seven. The date the PoPLA code is issued is day one.

Since they haven't supplied the docs required by the PoFA, the NTH is non-PoFA compliant therefore the hirer cannot be held liable therefore the appeal must be allowed.

In the agreement it says "Hirer accepts full liability for any overhead damage", would that count?

This is what they attached. Sadly, I think it does include the statement of liability, now that I read it properly.

However, they still didn't comply with the requirements of para 14 (5)(a).

Then say that,
However, they still didn't comply with the requirements of para 14 (5)(a).

You only need to win on one point. They have to win on every point.

So what do you think of this for my comment?

I was not the driver and have provided ample evidence of it, despite the confusion from the initial communication with Civil Enforcement Ltd.

Further, the requirements of paragraph 14 sub paragraph 5 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 were not met, therefore the hirer cannot be held liable for this PCN.

The confirmation of authority is for a different company than the landowner at the site: Coleshill Supermarket Ltd does not exist on Companies House, only Coleshill LOCAL Supermarket Limited. In addition, it fails to comply with the strict requirements of Sections 43 and 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The points not addressed by Civil Enforcement Ltd must mean they agree with the appellant, therefore the appeal must be granted on those points.

Fruitcake

I would add that they have failed to comply with sub para 5 (a) of the PoFA, and state precisely what wording has been omitted.  
State that since the operator has failed to comply with the strict requirements of the PoFA 2012, then appeal must be allowed.

If CEL have numbered their paragraphs, then quote the ones they have failed to address.

Include a screenshot of the Companies house website showing the registered company name if possible.