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
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 23rd Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    • 12Posts
    • 0Thanks
    twinkle13
    CEL ticket - 4 days left of POPLA appeal
    • #1
    • 23rd Feb 18, 2:30 PM
    CEL ticket - 4 days left of POPLA appeal 23rd Feb 18 at 2:30 PM
    Hi there,

    I have read the newbies page however i couldnt see anything that might help.

    I found this site late and my appeal (not the one i could have used here) as been rejected. I've been directed to POPLA.

    My case in summary:

    Used a CEL cark
    I registered a new mobile number to make a payment and later found the payment wasn't authorised. It transpired the payment details were incorrect. (recieved a textregarding this)
    I figured that out called the payment number several times (frantically) to see if i could change the card details they had. No joy as there's no option.
    Tried contacting the head office several times couldn't get through - they were closed.
    Spoke to main reception of head office the following day to provide the infomation. Can't make the payment the day after.
    I contacted CEL via email asking for audit information. record of phone calls, time etc
    Sent my appeal including evidence and was rejected.

    My question:

    My appeal email may have messed things up for me. as i'm conscious of putting info up on the site. If anyone has time could you view my email privately.

    I have 4 days left of the 28 days Popla appeal time. Yea i messed up.

    Let me know if i've missed anything.
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • 18,019 Posts
    • 28,539 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 23rd Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    • #2
    • 23rd Feb 18, 2:35 PM
    The NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 provides you with template appeal points to copy and paste and build into a winning POPLA appeal.

    Also do a forum search on (CEL POPLA) and look at recent POPLA appeals, which all win, because CEL pull out when they see a forum-based appeal.

    It's easy.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 23rd Feb 18, 2:59 PM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,438 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #3
    • 23rd Feb 18, 2:59 PM
    • #3
    • 23rd Feb 18, 2:59 PM
    Given youve already sent them your appeal, precisely what are you worried about showing here?

    We need to know exactly what you put. If you dont do that, you cant be helped.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 23rd Feb 18, 3:03 PM
    • 9,502 Posts
    • 9,271 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 23rd Feb 18, 3:03 PM
    • #4
    • 23rd Feb 18, 3:03 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.


    Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.


    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.


    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41


    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 2nd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    • #5
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    thanks for responding. I have an update i received a notice to owner.

    So, to explain, i used a parking space thought i paid however my the details were incorrect. I then received a text to say the payment was unauthorised, it also said i should call the number back to pay. Which i did a hour or so later. I called 6 times and started to pay for another time slot but couldn't change my card details still. I left a contact message on CEL customer service and left a voicemail. Had no response then called the following day. Argued with the csutomer service woman because there was no way to correct my card details; she couldn't provide with an answer as to how and you apparently can't pay the day after, then was told to speak to CEL.

    Email them copied of the call audit, my calls the text's sent explained the situation and was rejected as by there book i didn't follow the terms.

    My issue is now that i sent all this info to CEL and from my understanding i have pretty much confirmed who was driving at the time. Although, I did not literally say it. Can i still contest this ticket consider all of the shenanigans already?

    I wanted to appeal to POPLA but the options didn't fit my situation.

    What can i do now?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 2nd Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:58 PM
    Last Friday afternoon, yes a whole week ago, you were given good advice.

    That was to search for a CEL PoPLA appeal, there are literally hundreds here, and send one.

    Have you done that? Clearly not!

    You were also asked to post your original appeal here.
    You didn't do that either.

    A whole week wasted.

    What date do you reckon your PoPLA appeal is due by?


    Tell us more about this 'notice to owner' you have received.
    Who sent it?
    What does it say?
    .
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 2nd Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    • 36,811 Posts
    • 83,297 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Mar 18, 9:59 PM
    You appeal using all the template points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

    Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Mar 18, 11:15 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:15 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Mar 18, 11:15 PM
    Can i still contest this ticket consider all of the shenanigans already?
    Of course, who cares about what happened? Where do you see any CEL one we've lost at POPLA?

    Never.

    It's a huge shame you said who was driving (learn for next time NOT to do that!) but it's not terrible.

    No poster here has ever had to pay CEL, not even if they lose at POPLA because of saying who the driver was, and not even if they get a court claim (all discontinued when defended well).
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 3rd Mar 18, 1:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    • #9
    • 3rd Mar 18, 1:02 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Mar 18, 1:02 PM
    You appeal using all the template points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES.

    Post your draft here for checking before you submit it.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake

    Thanks for the response. I'll follow your recommendation. Appreciate the effort.
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 3rd Mar 18, 1:03 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    Of course, who cares about what happened? Where do you see any CEL one we've lost at POPLA?

    Never.

    It's a huge shame you said who was driving (learn for next time NOT to do that!) but it's not terrible.

    No poster here has ever had to pay CEL, not even if they lose at POPLA because of saying who the driver was, and not even if they get a court claim (all discontinued when defended well).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks for the response. I'll follow your recommendation. Appreciate the effort.
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 3rd Mar 18, 3:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    Hi Guys,

    Here is the letter i'd like to send. I'm not certain if i should include the 'landonwer authority' section or not.

    Thanks for your advance and time.

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Claim Number XXX Between:
    Civil Enforcement Limited (Claimant) v XXX (Defendant)





    Defence Statement




    I am XXX, the Defendant in this matter and the registered keeper of vehicle XXX. I currently reside at XXX.


    I deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim on the following grounds, any of which are fatal to the Claimant!!!8217;s case:
    1. The Claim Form issued on the 30th January 2018 by Civil Enforcement Limited was not correctly filed under The Practice Direction as it was not signed by a legal person. The claim does not have a valid signature and is not a statement of truth. It states that it has been issued by !!!8220;Civil Enforcement Limited!!!8221; as the Claimant!!!8217;s Legal Representative. Practice Direction 22 requires that a statement of case on behalf of a company must be signed by a person holding a senior position and state the position. If the party is legally represented, the legal representative may sign the statement of truth but in his own name and not that of his firm or employer.

    2. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.


    a) There was no compliant !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217;, under the Practice Direction.


    b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.


    c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.


    d) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - why the charge arose, what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information.

    The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs. These documents, and the !!!8216;Letter before County Court Claim!!!8217; should have been produced, pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction !!!8211; Pre Action Conduct. This constitutes a deliberate attempt to thwart any efforts to defend the claim or to !!!8220;take stock!!!8221;, pursuant to paragraph 12 of the Practice Direction. Again, this totally contradicts the guidance outlined in the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017), the aims of which are:
    i. !!!8216;early engagement and communication between the parties, including early exchange of sufficient information about the matter to help clarify whether there are any issues in dispute
    ii. enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings, including agreeing a reasonable repayment plan or considering using an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure
    iii. encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another (for example, avoiding running up costs which do not bear a reasonable relationship to the sums in issue) and
    iv. support the efficient management of proceedings that cannot be avoided.!!!8217;



    e) The additional particulars of claim are signed purportedly by Ashley Cohen, Mr Cohen was reported to sign off witness statements under London Councils POPLA on behalf of landowners, for CEL POPLA cases falsely stating authority. It is submitted that he is a director of another company, Bemrose Mobile Limited which supplies the pay by phone payment methods for parking. Mr Cohen was a former director of Creative Contracts Ltd but has since resigned. Mr Cohen is therefore put to strict proof the capacity and authority he has in signing such statements.


    f) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.


    g) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;
    (i) Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge
    (ii) A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)
    (iii) How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)
    (iv) Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper
    (v) Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter
    (vi) If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed
    (vii) If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed


    h) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.


    3. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8220;POFA 2012!!!8221. Such a notice was not served within 14 days of the parking event and when the notice was served, did not fully comply with statutory wording. The Claimant is therefore unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions:


    The Claimant did not comply with POFA 2012 and give the registered keeper opportunity at any point to identify the driver. A Notice to Keeper can be served by ordinary post and the Protection of Freedoms Act requires that the Notice, to be valid, must be delivered no later than 14 days after the vehicle was parked. No ticket was left on the windscreen and no notice to keeper was sent within the 14 days required to comply with POFA 2012 only a speculative invoice entitled !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8221; which was sent outside of the 14 day period, which did not comply with POFA 2012. This would exclude the registered keeper being liable for any charges.



    4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay 85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

    5. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.


    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.


    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.


    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.


    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds 100. (mine currently stands at 100 - !!!8220;received a PCN reminder!!!8221; stating this)
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    6. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed Civil Enforcement do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    7. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.


    8. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.


    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:


    a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 30th January 2018. (not certain of this date due to misplacing the original letter - I got this date from the!!!8221;response to representations letter)


    b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.


    c) failed to issue a compliant notice to keeper within 14 days under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 such that Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict !!!8216;keeper liability!!!8217; provisions.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.


    Signed XXX
    Date XXX
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 3rd Mar 18, 3:21 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    Wait a minute...

    Yesterday the conversation was about a PoPLA appeal, but now you have written a Defence.

    Have you received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre in Northampton already?
    .
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 3rd Mar 18, 6:02 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    I made a mistake before and misunderstood the posts read when i searched CEL popla appeal letter.

    Please see the new letter below. I may still misunderstand. I'm a visual learner with mild dyslexia and all of this text on the newbie page is hard to retain and comprehend.

    Thanks



    PCN:
    POPLA Verification Code:


    To whom it may concern,
    !!!8232;I would like to appal the above PCN on the following grounds:

    1) inad!quate signage
    2) No evidence of landowner authority


    1)The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge 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:

    [removed links]

    In the Beavis case, the 85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    [removed links]

    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 placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. 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.

    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 some 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.

    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 operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    [removed links]

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    [removed links]

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    [removed links]

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (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 binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:

    [removed links]

    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.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

    The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

    It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

    Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

    7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

    a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

    b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

    c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

    d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

    e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

    Kind regards

    xxxxxxxx
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 4th Mar 18, 2:46 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    bump this post
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 5th Mar 18, 11:35 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    Can anyone advise if the most recent letter above is sufficient please? i've got a funeral very soon so i'd like to deal with thsi beforehand. My mind will be elsewhere.

    Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Mar 18, 11:47 PM
    • 58,533 Posts
    • 72,030 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, just submit that, if you are sure you gave away who was driving.

    Please don't come back saying that POPLA only allow 2000 characters to appeal...!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 6th Mar 18, 9:58 AM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    Hiya,

    thanks for getting back to me.

    I am no unable to send in my appeal on popla site, from my understanding now i should get letters from debt collectors. Is there any can do now? I've searched the the board for any other users in my boat too.

    Thanks
    • twinkle13
    • By twinkle13 6th Mar 18, 12:15 PM
    • 12 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    twinkle13
    bumping this post
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 6th Mar 18, 1:36 PM
    • 7,713 Posts
    • 7,457 Thanks
    KeithP
    I am no unable to send in my appeal on popla site, from my understanding now i should get letters from debt collectors. Is there any can do now? I've searched the the board for any other users in my boat too.
    Originally posted by twinkle13
    What does that mean?
    It would be really helpful if you were to re-read your posts before posting.
    It would help others to understand and respond appropriately.

    Have you submitted your PoPLA appeal?
    Or have you missed your opportunity to do that?
    Or are you just having difficulty sending it?

    Post #4 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread will give you everything you need to know about how to deal with debt collector's letters.
    .
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 6th Mar 18, 2:54 PM
    • 2,765 Posts
    • 3,438 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    So yesterday you were ready to submit - what happened? are you past the 28 (well, really 33 days) deadline? Or will it accept the code, you just dont know how to upload the appeal under the "other" category?

    Also, DONT bump something 2 hours after you post, its a little obnoxious.
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

131Posts Today

1,359Users online

Martin's Twitter