Civil Enforcement Ltd

outraged_

Fruitcake said:

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.

There isn't a lot of space for it at this stage, it's now only comments on their response... Definitely no space for Companies house print, I will try maybe a link.

They have failed to comply with the whole of para 5, none of the wording has been mentioned, they didn't even call us a hirer on the PCN.

Fruitcake

outraged_ said:

Fruitcake said:

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.

There isn't a lot of space for it at this stage, it's now only comments on their response... Definitely no space for Companies house print, I will try maybe a link.

They have failed to comply with the whole of para 5, none of the wording has been mentioned, they didn't even call us a hirer on the PCN.

Even better.

outraged_

Unfortunately, my appeal with POPLA has been unsuccessful, I will post their reply soon....

Fruitcake

Oh well, never mind. The decision isn't binding on you so there is no reason to pay.

If you believe the assessor made an error by not correctly interpreting the PoFA then you should complain. It won't be the first time this is happened. 

outraged_

Assessor supporting rational for decision

The appellant explains that they were not the driver and their appeal to the operator was written in first person for simplicity. They feel that it is unlawful for the operator to affirm that they admitted driver’s liability as they identify as a female and the driver was a male. Upon review of the case file provided by the parking operator, I can see that the appellant stated, ‘’By the time I found a suitable parking space for a Luton van, parked the vehicle and went on to pay at the ticket machine’’ and ‘’ I left the car park at 7:19am’’. Whilst I appreciate that the appellant wrote the appeal in first person for simplicity, as they submitted it written as the driver, the operator are entitled to hold the appellant liable for the PCN. The appellant states that the notice to hirer is not compliant with the Protection Of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 or the The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. They say that the documents were not provided with the notice to hirer. I note that the appellant has referred to PoFA and requirements from the BPA Code of Practice. However, this would not be relevant within this case as driver liability has been established. Therefore, there is no requirement for PoFA to be considered. I note that the appellant feels that the evidence provided has been closely cropped and wish to see the original time stamped images Section 21.5a makes clear that when a PCN is being issued, photographs may be used as evidence. These should be clear and legible and not retouched or digitally altered. Within the case file, the parking operator have provided the images from the date of the parking event. I can see that these have been date and time stamped and have not been digitally altered or retouched. As no evidence has been supplied to dispute the ANPR images, I am satisfied that they clearly identify the vehicle and the time spent on site. I acknowledge that the appellant states that the operator are unable to definitively state the period of parking or identify the relevant land. Upon review of the PCN, I can see that the time has been clearly identified as 17:57 until 07:19 and the location as ‘’84-86 HIGH STREET, COLESHILL, BIRMINGHAM, B46 3AH’’. Furthermore, as the appellant has confirmed within their original appeal that they entered the car park in question at 17:57 and left on the date stated, the location and parking time has been clearly identified. The appellant questions the authority to issue PCN’s on site. Section 7.1 of the BPA Code of Practice outlines that parking operators must have written authorisation from the landowner or their agent, to manage the land in question. This can come in the form of a witness statement under Section 23.16B of the BPA Code of Practice or a full contract. In this case, the parking operator have provided a document which evidences that they have the authority to issue PCN’s for the site in question. The appellant states that there is lack of signage as it is not suitably placed or able to be read from a distance. There is also some bays which appear to be controlled by different operator. Section 19.2 of the Code says parking operators need to have entrance signs that make it clear a motorist is entering onto private land. In this case, the parking operator’s evidence shows that an entrance sign is present within an appropriate place and makes clear that terms are applicable. Section 19.3 states that parking operators need to have signage that clearly set out the terms. After reviewing the signage provided by the parking operator, I can see that these clearly state that terms are applicable. Bold text makes clear that payment must be made within 10 minutes of arrival and any breaches would result in a PCN being issued. The parking operator has provided a site map and multiple images which show that signs are placed throughout site ensuring that motorists can review. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the signage complies with the Code of Practice and as no evidence has been provided to show that there are other bays for different operators, would not make a material difference to the outcome of the decision. The appellant feels that the ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate. The site in question is ANPR operated. Every accessible entry and exit point to this car park is managed by either an entry or exit camera which takes an infrared image of the vehicle registration as it passes by, which is why it is important that motorists enter their full, correct registration so this can be calibrated to the images of their vehicle obtained from the ANPR cameras to determine whether the vehicle did in fact pay for adequate or inadequate time. Independent research has found that ANPR technology is generally reliable. As I accept there is the possibility for inaccuracies, I am happy to accept any evidence that suggests the appellant’s vehicle was elsewhere for this duration of time. Two ANPR images featured on the PCN show the appellant’s vehicle registration XXX entering site at 17:57 and vacating at 07:19, 13 hours 22 minutes after arriving. However, no evidence has been provided by the appellant to show that they were in an alternative area between the time frames pictured on the PCN, so we are unable to presume that they were not on site after being pictured entering at 17:57 and not leaving until 07:19 the following morning. As the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary, I will work on the basis that the information is accurate. Within their comments to the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds for appeal in further detail. Whilst I appreciate the appellant’s comments, as I have already addressed these grounds as part of my assessment, such comments have no bearing on POPLA’s outcome. As such, I have no further comments to make about these grounds at this stage. Based on the evidence provided by both parties towards the appeal, I am satisfied that a breach occurred as the appellant did not make a valid payment for their parking stay. I conclude that the PCN was issued correctly and therefore, the appeal is refused.

Coupon-mad

So that first appeal sadly wrecked the POPLA appeal chances (which would have been 100% winnable) but of course you don't pay! 

outraged_

Coupon-mad said:

So that first appeal sadly wrecked the POPLA appeal chances (which would have been 100% winnable) but of course you don't pay! 

I don't pay and then what?

Coupon-mad

All stages are explained already in the NEWBIES thread.  Post # 4 is your stage!

Same as this person who lost at IAS:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6455600/ias-appeal-dismissed-what-next#latest

And same as this person, ignoring Euro Car Parks:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6451947/please-help-euro-car-parks-severely-overwhelmed/p1

No worries and certainly no paying!  Next you will get a series of £170 threatograms.  Nasty, innit?

IN YOUR CASE, NO COURT CLAIM IS LIKELY.

One favour please: don't go just yet:

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and which WILL now escalate into an 'extortion' attempt to add a fake £70 fee on top of the already stupidly high parking charge - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens.

...anticipated very soon...end of July we think.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers.

Separate submissions from each driver.

I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this happening again.