Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 10th May 19, 8:24 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 6Thanks
    miss_angie
    Popla 2nd appeal
    • #1
    • 10th May 19, 8:24 PM
    Popla 2nd appeal 10th May 19 at 8:24 PM
    Please Help - it’s getting too complicated for me
    I was issued with PCN by CIVIL ENFORCEMENT LTD
    According to their ANPR I entered into parking area at 08:59 and left at 10:21.
    I paid £2.50 for an hour from 09.06 as the machine wasn’t accepting some of my coins and had to get change from nearby shop.
    When I received the initial PCN I appealed and requested more information. Civil enforcement replied that appeal was unsuccessful and that they didn’t have any more information as they do not operate CCTV for this location.
    They referred case to POPLA. I logged an appeal with POPLA stating the grace period and the fact that Civil Enforcement declined to supply any evidence apart from ANPR pictures.
    Civil enforcement have now responded to POPLA supplying the very evidence they initially stated not to have.
    According to the evidence they have now uploaded:
    I entered parking at 08.59, paid for parking at 09.06 and was seen leaving by ANPR at 10.21 therefore overstayed by 16 minutes and they want £100 for those 16minutes.
    I’m not sure what else I can say as I mentioned the grace period in my initial appeal to POPLA.
    Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th May 19, 1:21 AM
    • 72,247 Posts
    • 84,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 11th May 19, 1:21 AM
    • #2
    • 11th May 19, 1:21 AM
    Did you include the standard POPLA point about no landowner authority as well?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 11th May 19, 8:13 AM
    • 570 Posts
    • 1,070 Thanks
    MistyZ
    • #3
    • 11th May 19, 8:13 AM
    • #3
    • 11th May 19, 8:13 AM
    It's not a second POPLA appeal, it is usual for the PPC to present their evidence after seeing the appeal. You then have 7 days in which to comment on that evidence and only 2,000 characters in which to do so.

    Do you still have the text of your POPLA appeal? It might be helpful to have it here if you want help writing concise comments pointing out anything that's wrong with the PPC's evidence.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th May 19, 8:50 AM
    • 13,088 Posts
    • 13,405 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 11th May 19, 8:50 AM
    • #4
    • 11th May 19, 8:50 AM
    They are obviously trying to scam you so complain to your MP.

    Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

    Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

    Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 12th May 19, 9:26 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    • #5
    • 12th May 19, 9:26 AM
    Appeal
    • #5
    • 12th May 19, 9:26 AM
    In my initial appeal i mentioned the grace period and the fact that Civil Enforcement had declined to supply any evidence to afford me a robust appeal.
    Im not too familiar with the point about "no landowner authority. Would i just mention that they have no authority to charge me for those 16 minutes?
    Can I also mention the fact that the amount charged is too much for the 16 minutes overstay?
    • Le_Kirk
    • By Le_Kirk 12th May 19, 9:28 AM
    • 4,850 Posts
    • 4,349 Thanks
    Le_Kirk
    • #6
    • 12th May 19, 9:28 AM
    • #6
    • 12th May 19, 9:28 AM
    Go to the NEWBIE thread and read post # 3 where you will find sample POPLA appeals and rebuttals.
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 12th May 19, 5:34 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    • #7
    • 12th May 19, 5:34 PM
    My appeal so far..i will tidy it up before sending..any other suggestions please
    • #7
    • 12th May 19, 5:34 PM
    As the registered keeper I wish to refute these charges on the following grounds:
    There is no evidence provided by the operator that the contravention occurred at all, and if it did, where it occurred. Two photos of the vehicle with no landmarks to place the vehicle, merely show a car on an unidentified roadway x 2. The location is not able to be identified from those images, and the car is not shown to be near any signage with any terms & conditions, and nor are there any images of the dashboard, showing any failure to pay & display. Despite request of such evidence from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, none where forthcoming. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that the keeper have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that the keeper is personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.
    The Operator interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’. The second picture submitted with the Parking Charge Notice shows the exit time. Entry/exit times are not the ‘period of parking’, there is no evidence of parking, just entry/exit. PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), states;
    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates”. There is nothing in law that allows for CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, to interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’. It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which CIVIL ENFORCEMENT claim was 16 minutes overstayed) is not an unreasonable grace period.
    British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice requires “ You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes”
    CIVIL ENFORCEMENTstate that they do no operate CCTV and rely on ANPR. ANPR operators often produce misleading 'out' images taken at the end of the not insignificant time spent waiting on the pavement/entrance roadway, until it is safe to rejoin the main road, having actually left the car park boundary already.
    It is argued that the operator has selected the 'OUT' image showing the very last second before the vehicle disappeared as it joined the public highway, in a desperate and unfair attempt to paint a false picture time spent within the actual car park boundary as if it was in excess in ten minutes, when that was never the case.
    It is also suggested that CIVIL ENFORCEMENT does not have proprietary interest in the land and merely acting as agents for the owner/occupier. Therefore, I ask that CIVIL ENFORCEMENT be asked to provide strict proof that they have the necessary authorisation at this location in the form of a signed and dated contract with the landowner, which specifically grants them the standing to make contracts with drivers and to pursue charges in their own name in the courts. Documentary evidence must pre-date the parking event in question and be in the form of genuine copy of the actual site agreement/contract with the landowner/occupier and not just a signed ‘witness statement’ slip of paper saying it exists.
    1. Inadequate and unclear signage
    The BPA CoP,(Section 18.2) states:“Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. ”There is no sign at the entrance to this car park.. Therefore, to be able to read the additional signs within the carpark, the driver must enter the carpark. Furthermore, the signs inside the carparkare small(Appendix C–terms and conditions sign)and the information is not legible from a driver's seat. To be able to read the terms, the driver would need to stop the car, get out and read the information


    Signage at the car park does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and were not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces to form any contract with a driver.
    The BPA Code of Practice clearly states that:
    18.1 “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you.In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start.
    Bearing this paragraph in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the keeper and CIVIL ENFORCEMENT. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located and the terms and conditions illegible. Moreover, there is a ticket machine at the entrance to the car park that further confuses. The signage can only be seen/accessed once driver has entered into the parking area. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case. In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed. Here, the signs are sporadically and poorly placed – particularly to a driver entering the site. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car. In addition, inconsistent content, inconsistent aesthetic and poor positioning of signs means that a driver could easily have been misled by the terms and conditions of one sign whilst being under the impression all terms had been communicated, only for another sign elsewhere on the site to have further terms and conditions.
    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on the majority of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one. There is one signage in the whole parking area which is poor located at the entrance and a driver would have to leave their car in order to read the signage before entering into any contract.This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
    ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator’s signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space.
    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact!'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106'!about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them. This judgment is an example of a binding case law from the Court of Appeal offers further supports my argument:
    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.
    Therefore, without clear, compliant signs there was no contract established and therefore no breach of that alleged contract either. Therefore, request that CIVIL ENFORCEMENT be required to provide strict proof of exactly where the car was parked (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) and how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I request that they show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up, also on the date, time and lighting condition of the alleged event. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read safely from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this. In addition to this, it is requested that any neighbouring signs to the entrance and vehicle parking location to demonstrate the consistency of signage and how terms and conditions could not be misinterpreted or the driver misinformed.

    In summary, these points demonstrate the claim by CIVIL ENFORCEMENT is invalid and should the claim continue, further action and evidence requested in this appeal is required from CIVIL ENFORCEMENT
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th May 19, 10:55 PM
    • 72,247 Posts
    • 84,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 12th May 19, 10:55 PM
    • #8
    • 12th May 19, 10:55 PM
    You can't do a second POPLA appeal.

    If you are at comments 7 days stage, you only have 2000 characters (inc spaces)!

    My question was whether you included 'no landowner authority' in the POPLA appeal, as you can't add it now. So, did you?
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • MistyZ
    • By MistyZ 13th May 19, 7:41 AM
    • 570 Posts
    • 1,070 Thanks
    MistyZ
    • #9
    • 13th May 19, 7:41 AM
    • #9
    • 13th May 19, 7:41 AM
    You've done the POPLA appeal. C.E. came back with their evidence. That is how it works. That's what I said above.

    What is that evidence? You need to look at it very carefully and refute anything that is wrong. For example, if you included 'no landowner authority' in your first appeal and they have not provided adequate evidence that they have a compliant & current contract, then you say that & conclude that C.E. do not have authority to operate.

    Bullet points are a good way of staying within the 2,000 character limit.

    Tell us about the evidence they've supplied & also which points you covered in your POPLA appeal. Do that straight away as the clock is ticking.
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 15th May 19, 8:01 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    My POPLA appeal was pretty basic..
    I concentrated mainly on "grace period" and the fact that Civil Enforcement had not supplied the evidence I had requested.
    I did not mention anything about no landowner authority in my appeal that's why I have added it this time round - i can still add this now right??
    C.E uploaded 17pages of "evidence" so unfortunately I couldn't put it all here for you to see.
    £100 for 16minutes overstay?? is there something I can say about the excessiveness (if that's the word) of the amount compared to the alleged contrave
    Last edited by miss_angie; 15-05-2019 at 8:04 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 19, 8:08 PM
    • 14,776 Posts
    • 17,007 Thanks
    KeithP
    I did not mention anything about no landowner authority in my appeal that's why I have added it this time round - i can still add this now right??
    Originally posted by miss_angie
    No you can't.

    You cannot add new evidence at this stage.

    This is your opportunity to comment on their evidence.
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 19, 8:12 PM
    • 72,247 Posts
    • 84,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I did not mention anything about no landowner authority in my appeal that's why I have added it this time round - i can still add this now right??
    Nope, wrong.
    £100 for 16minutes overstay?? is there something I can say about the excessiveness (if that's the word) of the amount
    No, that is a losing argument. It was killed off in 2015 in ParkingEye v Beavis.

    I really wish you had come here earlier and appealed properly.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 15th May 19, 8:35 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    1. i will comment on the signs.. which are only visible once parked and you have to leave your car to read them
    2 i will comment on the landowner authority because they uploaded copies of a contact between landowner and themselves
    3. i will also comment on the use of ANPR pictures which show my car giving way to leave the car park. ( exiting not parked)
    i should have come here 1st time .. I was so sure they would just accept grace period...schucks!!
    And hope for the best..
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 15th May 19, 8:40 PM
    • 14,776 Posts
    • 17,007 Thanks
    KeithP
    Check their evidence thoroughly for errors. We have seen a car park tariff board shown for a car park over 100 miles from where the alleged parking incident took place.
    .
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 15th May 19, 8:41 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    Im on it.. Im going through it with a fine tooth comb
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th May 19, 8:41 PM
    • 72,247 Posts
    • 84,533 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Also reiterate your (should be winning!) grace periods point briefly:
    According to their ANPR I entered into parking area at 08:59 and left at 10:21. I paid £2.50 for an hour from 09.06 as the machine wasn’t accepting some of my coins and had to get change from nearby shop.
    State that seven minutes at the start is reasonable, given your facts. And that just leaves 9 minutes to leave the site after paid-for time, and that falls within the BPA CoP which has a mandatory ten minutes grace at the end of a parking event.

    You should win on that point but I think REMIND the Assessor that it was only 7mins (at the start) and just 9mins (at the end) and that there were no terms to tell a driver that the parking event had already started as you drove past the entrance. Thus, the parking session began at 9:06am.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • miss_angie
    • By miss_angie 15th May 19, 10:09 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    miss_angie
    submitted.. thank you.
    Fingers and toes crossed.. Will update you.
    Thanks again
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,556Posts Today

6,320Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I once blurted out on @gmb "Theresa May hasn't been given a poisoned chalice - she's been given a poisoned chalice? https://t.co/onfRbY3XVg

  • It'd be fascinating to know how history will judge Theresa May's premiership. Currently, it is hard to see it as a? https://t.co/eH77G0O9LA

  • Are you secretly trying to tell us Geri is going to take over? Will she tell us what we want, what we really reall? https://t.co/MOxa0jzPD7

  • Follow Martin