I dropped my wife at local hospital ,

drove down the road in to a car park.

Sign said 2hrs free then 80p per hour.

The signs were yellow and quite tatty.

I remember looking at one of the posts because it was leaning over at an angle.

Left car park 40 mins after entering feeling chuffed because I had saved £2.50 by not parking at hospital..

.Now got CEL invoice for £100/£60.

I went back to the car park and it has all new blue signs.

They say 7pm-7am 2hrs free then X per hr

7am-7pm 20mins free then X per hour.

Also no contract signage at all.

The date of "offence" 12/12/13

PCN issue date 31/12/13.

I have read a lot on this site and from what I understand this is not enforcable because they are outside the 14 days.

I know looking back on this site that the old advice was to IGNORE but is that the case now?

The new signs are a good 10 feet from the ground you can not see them unless you get out of your car.

Can anyone help with what I should do next.

14 days is correct, but that's not the issue date that's the date you receive it. So you should have had it by the 26th at the latest, if the incident occurred on the 12th. I would simply write back saying I received this as the keeper, I understand it must be delivered to me within 14 days. The conditions of POFA 2012 have not been met, I expect you to cancel this charge and notify me that you have done so.

Is this a Co op car park? If so they are normally good at getting these things dropped, as long as you were a customer!

If they refuse then they shouls include a POPLA reference No/ If they dont you are entitled to make a complaint to POPLA, the BPA and the DVLA. The latter supplies your information based upon the parking co's honesty and you can show that they were being dishonest in obtaining it and you want the DVLA to do something about that

I went back to the car park today and spoke to various shop owners ,they all said how much the "running" of the car park is affecting their trade!!!!

I have taken more photos of the signs. It would appear that the sign at the entrance is sited on old council sign posts on the public footpath It has to be a public footpath because there are double yellow lines around the curb.

Next I went to the local council office. I explained my problem and asked if they could check for planning permission for the signage. NO planning application made for signs.

I also rang Surrey County Council. They confirmed the entrance sign is on their land without permission.

CEL If your viewing this.. I haven't even started yet. Man from council coming your way soon. Have a nice day!!!!!!! XXXX

Thank you Esmerbbo I received the PCN on the 03/01/14

Ericsbrother Thank you as well. Rather than "hit them with the KO blow. I would prefer they rejected my appeal and it goes to POPLA that way it's cost them.

What do you think?

Up to you, most people want to get it all over and done with, I quite like an argument but the PPC's keep bottling out. Appeal to them on whatever reason you think is valid and see waht they say. POPLA online appeals limit what you can appeal on but a written representation really holds no limits as long as you have that precious cod. Beat them with the big stick afterwards.

I think I will say "poor signage". I have read nearly every post on this [THE BEST SITE EVER] and poor signage always gets rejected from what I've read.

Sucker punch.... They take the bait ...Bingo just cost them X£ to get a POPLA

CEL will reject on whatever grounds you appeal on,so I think you will have your day at POPLA!

Spoke to Surrey county council highways Dept today. Sign on SCC land being removed ASAP, and he thanked me for reporting it.

One nil to me. Now CEL will have to pay to have a new sign erected within the owners land , no doubt with out planning permission, but I'm on to that matter with the local council.

Thinking I might contact local paper because the first sign at the entrance is illegally sited, therefore no previous users of the car park entered into their "contract" and should ask for a refund in full. Can anyone advise me if this is correct?

The sign will not have "deemed consent" so dont let anyone tell you otherwise. The information notices that have that exemption are things like bus stops, fire escape notices, railway stationname signs etc not some misleading advert

Thanks ericsbrother I have followed a number of posts on here and always found your input very constructive. So as the sign at the entrance to the car park was erected without "deemed consent". Would my last sentence be correct ie previous victims of invoices should apply for a refund, on the grounds that the sign was illegal and that would surly make CELs contract with all previous "customers" void?

Thank you for you responses

they could claim that the complay misrepresented themselves but as with all of the private parking contract law none of it has ever been through a higher court so there is no precedent to go on.

Parking Eye relies on bilateral case law to push its points but these arent really relevant cases and district judges dont seem to agree with themon this point even when finding a contract was made so it is all a bit of a lottery. likewise your local council may decide that the interpretation of the planning law over advertising signage, which includes house numbers on your front door, does allow these signs if they are small enough. then you have the problem that if they are small enough to slip under the requirements of the planning law they will be considered too small to be visible and therefore unenforceable as an unfair contract.

So, you choose what bit of law that you think applies and hopes for the best. that is why many parking companies dont do court, they kniow that getting more than 50% of the people to pay up is more profitable and chasing the other 50% will cost more than they will ever make so they take the pragmatic approach. Even PE wont appeal its lost cases as they know that a precedent will then be set and they could very well kill the goose that lays the golden egg. they are fond of quoting cases they ahve won to persuade those that waver to pay up without going to POPLA or court but all of the cases they quote mean nothing in law.

I forgot to say, CEL could claim that by paying up, the prevoius people accepted a contract did exist and that they were in breach of it. That yould them mean that they people had "considered" the "offer" and were happy. Reality is at least 99.9% of those who pay up would be in total ignorance of the exact nature of what is claimed.

CEL sent letter of rejection to appeal.I appealed on pre-estimate of loss and contractual consent.

They have issued a POPLA no. So need assistance wording the appeal on the grounds that it was an ANPR offence on 12/12/13.PCN issued 31/12/13.

Date received on door mat 03/01/14. So they were outside the 14 days.

Also their letter of rejection is dated 24/01 but post mark date is 29/01 which I received on 31/01. 5 days from typing to posting.

you have your appela in a nutshell and now you also see one of their tactics to avoid losing at POPL, trying to get the code to you too late and then claiming it is all your own fault. Copy the envelope as part of your evidence and for a complaint to BPA if you eish to, i would be saving that for later though.

So, your appeal is on 3 points, that CEL failed to issue a NTK in the prescribed time for a number plate capture demand and thatyou dispute the right of CEL to claim a liquidated loss in their own name by way of ownership or occupation of the land and by contract. Any claim by CEL is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and is thus a penalty and finally, that there was insifficient signage, the only sign being one that wasnt on "relevant and" and therefore outside the remit of the PoFA and under thiose circumstances no claim can be made against the keeper of the vehicle, only against the driver at the time and no evidence has been offered to show who the driver was.

Should do it, but feel free to add anything else you might want to but POPLA will invaribly only consider one of the major points as they wouldnt want to be seen to be helping motorists being in a position to claim against their paymasters

Ericsbrother ,Thankyou for detailing my defence. I appreciate all the members for the good advice.

I have a question..... As CEL have seen fit to dismiss my appeal (well there is a supprise).

Can I write to them saying that any further cost incurred by me in writing further letters to POPLA will be at their expence?

In short, no, because you are appealing against a decision and that there is no certainty that you will be successful. In a court case the winner gets to claim their costs against the loser but you have to say what these are beforehand and you certainly cant slap costs on someone or a claim you havent yet won. If it was a council ticket you dont get a bean even if you have to drive 100 miles to present your appeal in person, the belief is that you are always grateful to get let off the penalty charge, though how this can be true if the charge is unlawful or incorrect in the first place I dont understand but that is how it goes.

Be pleased it costs the parking co money every time someone appeals and they cant claim that back if they win either.

Thanks EB . just thought I would ask..... You have to ask to learn anything. cheers

Written out the appeal to POPLA and posted it with copies of CEL letters but forgot to put POPLA code on my appeal letter.

I put CEL PCN no. and my Registration no. The POPLA code no. is on the attached CEL letters.

Will it be OK or should I just send another copy?

Send it again with the code, it must have the code to be accepted. You can also do it online.

Thanks esmerobbo, I will send it again

Just an update. Had letter from POPLA giving the date of the hearing.

CEL posted me a copy of their submissions paper work and in it they have stated the following.

"We accept that as this ticket was issued after 14 days following the incident that the ticket does not benefit from the provisions of the POFA 2012.

We are not disputing the fact that the POFA 2012 does not apply.

We are not claiming RK liability, we are claiming that the ticket remains valid and due for payment by the driver"

They have not enclosed a copy of the contract with the owner, just a "witness statement" suggisting one does exist

Any ideas?

Do they know who the driver was?

No matter what they produce or state the winner will be GPEOL.

Hi esmerobbo , no they don't know who the driver was and there is no photos of the car leaving or arriveing?

They have just provided a copy of what cars did pay at the number plate input machine.

well, you appealed to POPLA as the rk so they cant chase you and they admit as much. You can use any other argument you want but your appeal must be allowed on this point.