CEL evidence rebuttal comments (POPLA appeal). Breastfeeding mother not paying within 10 minutes.

Bullen90

Background: Driver was a breastfeeding mother. Parked, had to feed her baby, so took 21 minutes to pay after feeding and getting the pram out etc… Civil Enforcement Ltd are the operator and and issued PCN to me as registered keeper for not paying within 10 minutes as per their T and Cs (POFA compliant I believe). I’ve done the appeal to them and submitted the appeal to POPLA. I now have to respond to the evidence CEL have provided. Hopefully this works: I’ve hosted their evidence and the link is to google drive:

h t t p s colon slash slash drive.google.com/file/d/15Hr_xQziRdAJR9b1EYr2qxbDoxZ6NEB5/view?usp=sharing

I’m currently drafting the response now, but wanted to get this thread started and upload their evidence to try and get some help - specifically with which are the most important points to rebuke. I will post my draft response as soon as possible.

Thanks so much in advance for any help.

Bullen90

So far:
The Vine Case seems odd for them to bring up, I thought that actually helps my case?
No site plan was provided despite them saying it was. The photo i have in the appeal clearly shows parking spaces that can't view signage.
Kelvin Reynolds quote about grace period not being a specific length of time to rebuke their BPA quote.
Signage: Their photos are cropped and zoomed. Mine show much better scale and how tiny the terms and conditions writings are. I even think their photos show how bad the signs are - opinions please?
They even state no length of time for grace period is shown, and show no evidence of grace period with landowner. Is that a good point?
No expiry on landowner agreement. Is what they've provided any good??

Hopefully that conveys some of my thoughts. Any feedback welcome and of course additional rebukes to raise would be much appreciated.

fisherjim

Your link made live:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15Hr_xQziRdAJR9b1EYr2qxbDoxZ6NEB5/view

A couple of points:

Their photos as far as I can see could be generic in as much as there is no evidence relating them to the site, they could be taken anywhere.

The photos are not date stamped (POPLA are always pulling up appellants on this) so in addition to the above could have been taken at any time in the past.

These photos do not clearly state the Terms and Conditions they have clearly been taken with either a poor camera, at low definition, or the operator wasn't taking much care they are illegible and again clearly not evidence.

They state "there are many clear visible signs displayed in the car park" again there is no evidence in their pack only those words which are not evidence at all (and I wonder if the writer has ever been to that site and seen for them selves).

There is no plan of the position of these signs as stated (invariably they only supply an GSV plan with dots on it which means nothing)

They state that they "are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances" that is not true as the two stage appeal is specifically set up for THEM to consider mitigation and POPLA to consider Law/process/ COP adherence/contract etc.

And of course there is the Equalities Act that they should have considered, the fact that other motorists complied with the 10 minute rule probably means they were not in the same situation as you.

They claim that their signage being placed seven feet off the ground is clearly legible, but their own photographs (if they are indeed of this site which could be debatable) clearly show they are not.

Hope this helps there will be other points others will highlight and some are probably not deal breakers but you have to throw everything at it

Fruitcake

How did you get on with Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP, citing the EA 2010 with regards to breastfeeding mothers?

With regards to the Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council case, CEL have done what many PPCs do and chopped off the bit that supports the motorist, namely that the motorist did not see the signs because there were none near their vehicle.


"In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the plaintiff's distressed state, the reason why the plaintiff parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the plaintiff's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness."

Bullen90

Fruitcake said:

How did you get on with Plan A, a complaint to the landowner and your MP, citing the EA 2010 with regards to breastfeeding mothers?

With regards to the Vine v Waltham Forest London Borough Council case, CEL have done what many PPCs do and chopped off the bit that supports the motorist, namely that the motorist did not see the signs because there were none near their vehicle.


"In this case the recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the plaintiff's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the plaintiff's distressed state, the reason why the plaintiff parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the plaintiff's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the plaintiff was other than a truthful witness."

I wasn't able to find out the landowner. I had assumed it was the premier convenience store down the road , as the car park is called "Leen Gate Convenience" and was the only link I found. I had no joy chasing that up. Seems it was wrong assumption anyway, I have the landowner details now, so I assume it is well worth writing a strongly worded letter around the equalities act asap?

Bullen90

Another part of my appeal was confusion with the neighbouring car park. If you look at Google reviews for Leen Gate car park (which is the directly adjacent one) there are loads of reviews complaining about confusion and paying for the wrong car park. I was going to state that and link to the reviews. There doesn't seem to be "Leen Gate Convenience" car park (the one this pcn relates to) in google to be reviewed. As it wasn't me at the car park and I've never been, it was really confusing to work out exactly which car park it was and which signs etc.

I did get a couple photos taken for me, but not up close. I'd say they are much more representative of the true review. In my opinion the signage is pretty shoddy, even if they may be more numerous than I originally thought. I have one photo clearly showing spaces that can't see a sign from.

One other question, I appealed about no planning permission for ANPR. I searched and couldn't find any. Is that grounds for POPLA appeal to be upheld? If not, is it a sure win on those grounds if it went to court?

Coupon-mad

Equality Act 2010 (not 'Equalities').

Bullen90

fisherjim said:

A couple of points:

Their photos as far as I can see could be generic in as much as there is no evidence relating them to the site, they could be taken anywhere.

The photos are not date stamped (POPLA are always pulling up appellants on this) so in addition to the above could have been taken at any time in the past.

These photos do not clearly state the Terms and Conditions they have clearly been taken with either a poor camera, at low definition, or the operator wasn't taking much care they are illegible and again clearly not evidence.

They state "there are many clear visible signs displayed in the car park" again there is no evidence in their pack only those words which are not evidence at all (and I wonder if the writer has ever been to that site and seen for them selves).

There is no plan of the position of these signs as stated (invariably they only supply an GSV plan with dots on it which means nothing)

They state that they "are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances" that is not true as the two stage appeal is specifically set up for THEM to consider mitigation and POPLA to consider Law/process/ COP adherence/contract etc.

And of course there is the Equalities Act that they should have considered, the fact that other motorists complied with the 10 minute rule probably means they were not in the same situation as you.

They claim that their signage being placed seven feet off the ground is clearly legible, but their own photographs (if they are indeed of this site which could be debatable) clearly show they are not.

Hope this helps there will be other points others will highlight and some are probably not deal breakers but you have to throw everything at it

Thanks a lot, very useful. I'm almost certain they are of the car park in question based on the photos I have myself. There is another document actually that they provided, which has additional photos which I should share too. These are time stamped unfortunately:

h t t p s colon slash slash drive.google.com/file/d/16KGa6zBimZe4sXm5Z4EJmf2XW0jVF5Nx/view?usp=drivesdk

Bullen90

My draft below, which is far too long. About 4000 characters Vs the 2000 (?) limit. Any feedback in which points are the most important would be appreciated. Thank you!

The operator (CEL hereafter) asserts clear signage yet this is strongly challenged. There is ambiguity and lack of visibility hindering the drivers' ability to comprehend and accept terms. As the driver enters, the sign is at 90 degrees to the driver and difficult to notice let alone read whilst focusing on driving. Upon parking, signs are not visible from all spaces. It is entirely reasonable the driver did not see any sign before proceeding to feed her baby for the necessary time before going to make payment. In photos provided by CEL it is not possible to make out the T&Cs despite being artificially close up. Multiple signs in the evidence pack are over 7 feet "to stop vandalism" however it makes the sign redundant as it is not possible to read at that height, especially considering the tiny font size (particularly the T&Cs) which their own photos show.

CEL state "there are many clear visible signs displayed in the car park". I dispute this and they failed to provide a site plan, only words which are not evidence (and I wonder if the writer has ever even been to the site and seen for themselves). In my evidence, you can clearly see parking spaces that signs are not visible from.

CEL states "they are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances". This is false as the two stage appeal is specifically set up for the operator to consider mitigation and POPLA to consider Law/Process/ COP adherence/contract etc.. CEL should have considered the Equality Act 2010 which protects the rights of the disabled and specifically includes breastfeeding mothers. The fact that other motorists complied with the 10 minute rule simply means they were not in the same situation as the driver, nothing more.

Re: Vine v Waltham Forest LBC, CEL has cherry picked from the case. The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Vine, holding that the local authority's decision to issue the PCN was unreasonable and disproportionate. The court emphasized that parking enforcement authorities must exercise their discretion reasonably and take into account all relevant circumstances before issuing a PCN. This case in fact supports my appeal that circumstances combined with signs not visible from all parking spaces is a legitimate appeal.

ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle's presence, but their accuracy, maintenance, and scope are questioned. Evidence of proper calibration and functionality is required, especially regarding the alleged infringement. I also seek clarification on the scope of ANPR surveillance and whether it extends beyond vehicle movements.

As the registered keeper, I dispute contractual obligations as claimed by CEL as terms were not clearly communicated. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that terms were effectively communicated and agreed upon by the driver, which is not the case as the T&C's from the photos they provide are illegible.

CEL cites the BPA guidelines, however I refer you to Kevin Reynold's quote in my appeal, who gives context on the required flexibility of grace periods based on circumstances.

CEL references the grace period, but there is no mention of the what grace period is agreed with the land owners. This is highlighted by the operator who even says "signage does not inform of grace period lengths". I contend that the 10 minutes assumed by CEL is unreasonable under the circumstances explained.

CEL claims one photo to disprove confusion with adjacent car park. One photo does not disprove this at all, and I refer you to the Google reviews of the neighbouring car park, with many disgruntled customers complaining of the confusion. Even the names of the car parks themselves are confused with each other. https://g.co/kgs/GEkmkNe

CEL provide Confirmation of Authority that lacks an expiry date and provides only one enforcement policy, casting doubt on its validity and comprehensiveness. Therefore the authenticity and scope of authority granted by the document can not be considered.

CEL point to BPA advising motorists to park properly and check signage. However the clarity and prominence of signage are crucial for understanding and compliance. It does not absolve the operator from ensuring clear and accessible signage.

Coupon-mad

It reads too much like some of it was written by the truly awful Chat GPT ... so if you did use that, bin it and write it in normal uncomplicated English. Some sentences are almost impossible to read.

Also, I think you can remove all this and will lose nothing important:

"ANPR cameras recorded the vehicle's presence, but their accuracy, maintenance, and scope are questioned. Evidence of proper calibration and functionality is required, especially regarding the alleged infringement. I also seek clarification on the scope of ANPR surveillance and whether it extends beyond vehicle movements.

As the registered keeper, I dispute contractual obligations as claimed by CEL as terms were not clearly communicated. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that terms were effectively communicated and agreed upon by the driver, which is not the case as the T&C's from the photos they provide are illegible.

CEL cites the BPA guidelines, however I refer you to Kevin Reynold's quote in my appeal, who gives context on the required flexibility of grace periods based on circumstances.

CEL references the grace period, but there is no mention of the what grace period is agreed with the land owners. This is highlighted by the operator who even says "signage does not inform of grace period lengths". I contend that the 10 minutes assumed by CEL is unreasonable under the circumstances explained."