Civil Enforcement Ltd reject representation**Beat em at POPLA**

[EOS-5D]

Hi All

 

I got a PCN from Civil Enforcement Ltd, to which i sent them a letter refusing their specuilative invoice and also informing them that I wasn't sure of the drivers identity, as many people have access to this vehicle.

 

They have rejected my representation (see below)

 

 

How should i proceed? should I send a further letter to them or go down the POPLA route.

 

Many Thanks

 

EOS 5D

[armadillo71]

You go to POPLA.

 

Edit out the POPLA verification code in your first image.

[EOS-5D]

Thank you for your reply.

 

As you can see, CE have a lovely photo of a sign, but no photos of the vehicle in question entering or leaving the car park (there were no photos with the original invoice either). Do they have to supply these photos?

 

Could someone please point me in the right direction to a template letter, as I can't seem to find one.

 

Many thanks

[armadillo71]

First off- it was ANPR , so did you receive the Notice To Keeper within fourteen days of the parking incident?

 

Second- did you appeal as the driver or the registered keeper?

[EOS-5D]

Yes, the notice to keeper came within 14 days and i appealed as the keeper. I stated that many people have access to the car, therefore I did not know who was driving on the day/time in question

[armadillo71]

Ok. A simple appeal to POPLA should get this cancelled.

Don't have much time now but shall return later. Have a read of the successful sticky .

 

Out of interest, 25 minutes customer free parking for what establishment ?

Can you pay for more parking time on site?

[EOS-5D]

Ok. A simple appeal to POPLA should get this cancelled.

Don't have much time now but shall return later. Have a read of the successful sticky .

 

Out of interest, 25 minutes customer free parking for what establishment ?

Can you pay for more parking time on site?

 

I wasn't the driver, so not sure looking at the address online, its a Texaco/Co-Op at on The Bath Road, opposite Heathrow airport. usually at these types of establishments there isn't the possibility to pay for extra parking

[armadillo71]

I wasn't the driver, so not sure looking at the address online, its a Texaco/Co-Op at on The Bath Road, opposite Heathrow airport. usually at these types of establishments there isn't the possibility to pay for extra parking

 

So this is a garage forecourt, with car wash , petrol pumps and a shop...

This has a limit of fifteen minutes.

And they call it a car park that has had severe problems with unauthorised parking?

[BazzaS]

So this is a garage forecourt, with car wash , petrol pumps and a shop...

This has a limit of fifteen minutes.

And they call it a car park that has had severe problems with unauthorised parking?

 

If it is near Heathrow on the Bath Road : it probably does!

Minicabs collecting from Heathrow waiting to hear from their fares that they have cleared customs will be looking for places to wait that aren't on a red route .....

 

I'm not sure it is unreasonable to restrict however many parking spaces they have to a period short enough for their customers to shop. The location may change the supply-demand dynamic from the usual ; would POPLA view this as a "commercial justification" issue?

[armadillo71]

They need to provide a means to pay on site if they are trying to say you can park there for longer than fifteen minutes.

 

And they do not state the figure you can pay to park there on the sign.

 

They should also have provided the photos of the car for the registered keeper to see.

[Surfer01]

BTW can they use Data protection to reject supplying a copy of the civil contract giving them the right to prosecute you on behalf of the LL if it did go to court?

[armadillo71]

BTW can they use Data protection to reject supplying a copy of the civil contract giving them the right to prosecute you on behalf of the LL if it did go to court?

 

They have to show the judge something that makes him/her believe that they have the legal right to pursue these charges to court.

This should be an unredacted contract, but is not always...

[ericsbrother]

You have the POPLA cvode so appeal on the 2 grounds of you do not believe that CEL have a valid assignment of rights to pursue any alleged debt in their own name so demand to see sight of the contract between the landlord and CEL where this is sepcificallyagreed and secondly, you do not believe that the chage of £90 is a Genuine Pre-estimate Of Losses caused by any alleged breach of the contract that is supposedly formed by your parking there and is thus an unlawful penalty charge.

[EOS-5D]

Just had a very lengthy copy of the response to POPLA from Civil Enforcement. In the response to POPLA, Civil Enforcement refer to the parking charge/fine as a ticket.

 

I can post all 15 pages of their response, or most of it, if you wish, but in summing up they say:-

 

This tickets was issued correctly as:

a) Although the appellant states they were not the driver on the day, the Enforcement Notice was issued within the provisions of POFA 2012, as the driver has not been named to Civil Enforcement Ltd within 28 days of the Enforcement Notice being issued the registered keeper is liable for the charge.

b) The appellants vehicle exceeded 25 minutes maximum stay allowance.

c) The terms and conditions are clearly stated on the signage throughout the car park

d) The ANPR cameras in place operate within the guidelines set out in the British Parking code of conduct.

 

We therefore request you reject this appeal and uphold our PCN

 

 

Right,

 

1) They are still insistent that due to data protection, they are unable to issue a ticket.

2) They say that the ticket was issued using ANPR, but having a look on Google earth, I can't see any ANPR cameras???

3) They haven't supplied any images of the car in question

 

 

What do you think guys??

 

kind Regards

 

EOS-5D

[EOS-5D]

CE say that they have looked after this site from Nov 2013. This image is from 2014 https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4813023,-0.4492719,3a,75y,16.29h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sgy2XHyCQyzzm779EvYLAww!2e0 and I still can't see any ANPR cameras

[ericsbrother]

with reference to a) in their response: utter rubbish, they have to supply a copy fo the evidence when they send you the 1st demand and have failed to do so. If it was by anpr then they have to show photos from those cameras. To claim the demand was issued in accordance to the PoFA and data protection prevents them from shwing the evidence is a big lie so demand copies of their images.

Make a rebuttal statement to POPLA pointing this out.

Also, does the 15 pages include a copy of their assignment contract with landowner and a breakdown of their losses directly attributable to your parking on someone else's land.

I dont see any signs at the entrance to the land either so how are you supposed to accept the terms of a contract if it isnt posted up for you to consider? Dont worry about this point too much at the moment but it is something to use if CEL want to try their luck after POPLA should your appeal not be upheld.

If the place is somewher you pass by then take soem pictures of your own rther then rely on google. I would bet that the garage has anpr cameras for preventing people driving off without paying but it wont have parking covered by their ICO registration for data processing under the DPA

[EOS-5D]

Thank you for your reply. Its much apprieciated

[Anubis1275]

Good afternoon all,

 

Going back to the signage and letter if CEL are going down the POPLA route do they have to be BPA members to advocate this and should the BPA logo have to appear on documents and signage for them to be compliant? I am sure I have read this in other threads?

[EOS-5D]

***** UPDATE*****DECISION FROM POPLA*****

 

Just had the decision come through from POPLA. They have allowed my appeal on the basis that Civil Enforcement did not provide a copy of the contract between themselves and the land owner and they also could not provide a signed statement from the landowner either.

 

hope this helps

 

EOS-5D

[silverfox1961]

Hi,

Congratulations for sticking this out. Having read the thread, it was blatantly clear that they hadn't a leg to stand on.

 

I will mark this thread resolved.

[EOS-5D]

Thank you ever so much. Just hope this thread can help someone else in the same situation

[ericsbrother]

Good result and a correct reason for allowing your appeal. Generally POPLA state no GPEOL even if other arguments put forward so nice to see that they looked at things in a logical order and decided CEL dont have the right to make a claim in the first place

[armadillo71]

Well done! Good to see it was not GPEOL as well.